209 Highest 1990 Violation of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act

○○ (60-years, male), self-employed

Housing Suwon-si, Housing Suwon-si

Mayang-si in the place of registration

○ ○

August 31, 2009

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

When the above fine is not paid, the defendant shall be converted into the Labor House for the period of 50,000 won into one day.

shall be kept in custody.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Criminal facts

피고인은 수원시 장안구 □□동 00 - 00에서 000 . 00m의 규모로 ' A ' 이라는 상호로 일 반음식점을 운영하고 있는 자인데 , 2008 . 12 . 경부터 2009 . 4 . 21 . 경까지 □□유통 , ㅁㅁ □유통으로부터 미국산 ( 美國産 ) 양념 쇠갈비 1 , 040 . 7kg을 구입하여 판매하고 있음에도 메뉴판에 ' 양념 갈비 ( 호주산 , 미국산 ) ' 이라고 원산지 표시를 거짓으로 하거나 이를 혼동 하게 할 우려가 있는 표시를 하는 행위를 하여 판매하였다 . 1 )

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Photographs (satisf A, Qua New Markets, and U.S. C. C. S. C. H. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.

A Verification of the details of trading, the filing of a receipt copy, and the details of A’s purchase of a novel

[Judgment on the Defendant and defense counsel's argument]

In this regard, the defendant and his defense counsel held that the defendant's sales of the U.S. dollars and stated "U.S. dollars other than the U.S. dollars in the M. New Market," and did not sell the U.S. dollars by joining the U.S. dollars as Australia, and on February 19, 2009, the defendant's operation does not constitute a violation of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act.

The phrase "an act of making a false indication of origin or a mark likely to cause confusion" under Article 17 (2) 1 of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act refers not to the actual misunderstanding of the other party's origin, but to make an indication that has a risk of recognizing the origin differently according to the transactional notion based on the average of the ordinary customers, i.e., the mark that causes such confusion includes the crymological and indirect indication that may cause such confusion with regard to the origin of livestock products. In the case of 'brupt ( Australia and U.S.),' as in the instant case, it is likely that a common person would mislead the defendant to believe that he is a product imported at two places in the defendant's restaurant in the U.S. and Australia, and thus, it is sufficient that the defendant and the defense counsel are aware of the risk of selling the product as a whole, as a whole, in the event of choosing customers with the general care of customers with the exception of whether the origin is U.S. origin or Australia. Therefore, it cannot be seen that the defendant's assertion that the risks of customers will be easily accepted.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Article 35 subparagraph 3 of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act and Article 17 (2) 1 of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act (no criminal record is shown on the accused)

However, punishment shall be imposed in consideration of the people's apprehensions due to the absence of criminal records of the same kind, and the occurrence of opportunies.

Although there is no need to do so, the legislative intent of the above penal provision is mainly protecting domestic livestock farmers.

to prevent sales of foreign livestock products in the Republic of Korea as minimum safety devices for

to secure consumer confidence and expand the demand for domestic beef; Defendant

The action of a person shall be punished in consideration of the main purpose of the penal provision and the absence of any relationship.

Punishment Selection)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judges Song-ho

1) Although the facts charged are "False Indication" on the legal evaluation of the defendant's act, Article 17 (2) 1 of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act is actual.

Since "an act of falsely indicating the origin, etc. or making an indication that is likely to cause confusion" is stated as "an act of making a false indication of origin, etc.", a false indication here.

the Si's entry in the process of moving "an act of making a false indication of origin, etc. or an indication that is likely to cause confusion thereof";

Also, the defense counsel argues that the above act itself does not constitute the above act itself with the full knowledge of the above provision of the law in the written opinion.

As long as there is no influence on the defendant's exercise of his right to defense, the contents are corrected without any changes in indictment.

2) Report on examination of the amended bill of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act (see the first proposal of the National Assembly No. 273 on April 29, 2008)